, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 241–259 | Cite as

Age differences in locomotion of two subtropical galaginae

  • Robin Huw Crompton


The locomotor behaviour ofGalago senegalensis andG. crassicaudatus (Primates: Lorisidae) was quantified in an 11-month field study in the Northern Transvaal of South Africa. This paper assesses the distinction between the behaviour of adults, and that of infants at the age when they first began foraging independently, taking into account seasonal variations in adult behaviour. Infants of both species differ significantly from adults in the types of locomotion they use, postures, activity, support use, height of observation and tree use. While all these factors are inter-connected, it is concluded that infants exploit a quantitatively different part of the arboreal habitat from adults, because of factors such as locomotor maturation and gross body size. Dietary differences are also possible but the present study cannot establish or deny this possibility.


Body Size Seasonal Variation Field Study Animal Ecology Locomotor Behaviour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bearder, S. K. &G. A. Doyle, 1974. Ecology of bushbabies,Galago senegalensis andGalago crassicaudatus, with some notes on their behaviour in the field. In:Prosimian Biology,R. D. Martin,G. A. Doyle &A. C. Walker (eds.), Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 109–130.Google Scholar
  2. Cartmill, M. &K. Milton, 1977. The lorisiform wrist joint and the evolution of “brachiating” adaptations in the Hominoidea.Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 47: 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crompton, R. H., 1980.Galago locomotion. Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard Univ., Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. ----, in press. Foraging, habitat structure and locomotion in two species ofGalago. In:Foraging in Non-human Primates,J. Cant & P. Rodman (eds.), Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Doyle, G. A., 1979. Development of behaviour in prosimians. In:The Study of Prosimian Behaviour,G. A. Doyle &R. D. Martin (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 157–205.Google Scholar
  6. Fleagle, J. G., 1977. Locomotor behaviour and muscular anatomy of sympatric Malaysian leaf-monkeys (Presbytis obscura andPresbytis melalophos).Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 46: 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nie, N. N., C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner &D. H. Bent, 1977.Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Niemitz, C., 1974. A contribution to the postnatal behavioural development ofTarsius bancanus Horsfield, 1821, studied in two cases.Folia Primatol., 21: 250–276.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pough, F. H., 1973. Lizard energetics and diet.Ecology, 54(4): 837–844.Google Scholar
  10. Ripley, S., 1967. The leaping of langurs: a problem in the study of locomotor adaptation.Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol., 26: 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Huw Crompton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anatomy, Faculty of MedicineThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations